AnonProxy
Proxy of Anon
Premium
join:2001-05-12
ß
1 edit | There is a bit of a price war
AOL is boosting the cost of their dial up to move people to broadband (they are at war with themselves)
SOme places are offering low tiered service cheap...but really putting it to ya for the high speed stuff.
|
|
itguy05
join:2005-06-17
Camp Hill, PA
| Duh, simple business.
Surprise Surprise.... Just goes to show "competition" is merely a panacea that makes us THINK prices will go down.
In almost every case, competition does nothing to prices over the long run. You see, if company X can sell product A for $100 and make Z profit, why would I sell Product A for $50 and make $50-Z profit when I know the market will support the $100 price? That would be stupid.
We've seen the same thing with Cell Phones - There are 3-5 companies in an area and guess what? All are roughly the same price for the same minutes.
Competition is pretty much a farce and almost never results in largely reduced prices for consumers.
Just wait till all the IPTV and FiOS customers get their bills in year 2 and realize they are paying almost as much as cable..... |
|
lvas
join:2001-05-17
Glen Carbon, IL | reply to AnonProxy
avg rate is not 34.99 for dsl
$12.99 per month is 12-month promotional rate for AT&T Yahoo! High Speed Internet Express with an ongoing rate of $29.99 per month after the promotional term |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | reply to itguy05
Re: Duh, simple business.
"Prices going down" is just ISP-speak for "increasing bandwidth (but not dropping prices)." |
|
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
| reply to itguy05
said by itguy05  : Just wait till all the IPTV and FiOS customers get their bills in year 2 and realize they are paying almost as much as cable..... Excellent point, which brings up the subject of why does everyone want to rush this regulatory giveaway of the farm to the telcos in the name of 'speeding up' deployment. The decisions we make right now we'll have to live with for decades. |
|
bamabrad
join:2006-01-27
Port Orange, FL
| reply to itguy05
Key words"paying almost as much". Most of the recent studies show that the majority of consumers prefer lowest cost when the offerings are similar and will switch only when there is a significant price difference or they get upset with their current provider.Maybe what we need are local providers with local government incentives to keep the duopolies from becoming too overbearing. |
|
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
 ·Qwest.net
| reply to itguy05
said by itguy05 :Surprise Surprise.... Just goes to show "competition" is merely a panacea that makes us THINK prices will go down. In almost every case, competition does nothing to prices over the long run. You see, if company X can sell product A for $100 and make Z profit, why would I sell Product A for $50 and make $50-Z profit when I know the market will support the $100 price? That would be stupid. We've seen the same thing with Cell Phones - There are 3-5 companies in an area and guess what? All are roughly the same price for the same minutes. Competition is pretty much a farce and almost never results in largely reduced prices for consumers. Just wait till all the IPTV and FiOS customers get their bills in year 2 and realize they are paying almost as much as cable..... I would agree. One factor is, at some point, the costs associated with providing service dictates the amount a customer pays. And in more rural areas, that cost can be huge. And I don't know of any company making big profits from broadband access. At some point, it's sold as cheaply as it can be. That point may have been reached. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | reply to itguy05
Competition is hardly a farce. It completely works.
However, in the absence of a free market, there is none. |
|
grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY
1 edit | What are you talking about?
Broadband prices are going down. You have all the DSL light deals now. Verizon upgrades its DSL light customers to a lower tier FIOS package when they upgrade those customers. Verizon's cheapest package is $35 per month for 5/2 in some places 10/2. That is only 5 dollars more than their DSL package which is 3/768. You have to realize the companies raise costs to keep up with inflation as well. $35 today is different from $35 tommorow, but maybe the same as $45. They also don't take into account the new customers coming over from dial up, which was more expensive if you had a second phone line. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
2 edits | $39.45 not $34.95
quote:
It notes the average price for cable modem service was $34.95 per month, and $35.38 for DSL.
Unless I'm reading it wrong...it says $39.45/mo is the cable average.
Also out of curiousity what cable operators have service for less than $40/mo? All of the majors I can think of which would constitute the vast majority of cable HSI subs are all over $40, typically $43 or $45 so there must be tons offering for less than $40? Who are they? |
|
Mactron
el camino Real
Premium
join:2001-12-16
CM94sv
| reply to itguy05
Re: Duh, simple business.
said by itguy05 :Surprise Surprise.... Just goes to show "competition" is merely a panacea that makes us THINK prices will go down. I had 768/128 for $49.95 a month five years ago. Today I have 3000/768 for $29.95 a month. All with the same ISP.
Funny how competition works. 
--
If only the Verizon CSRs worked this well. |
|
averagedude
join:2002-01-30
Mesa, AZ | reply to lvas
Re: avg rate is not 34.99 for dsl
Remember the $29.99 is just the base, now add all the "fees". |
|
KrazyDawg
join:2001-02-07
Vallejo, CA
clubs:
| reply to lvas
said by lvas :$12.99 per month is 12-month promotional rate for AT&T Yahoo! High Speed Internet Express with an ongoing rate of $29.99 per month after the promotional term It is the average rate when you're not counting the promotional 12 month offer. Also, that offer is not available to everyone so the average rate on the article isn't off by a large margin. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
1 edit | reply to oliphant
Re: $39.45 not $34.95
said by oliphant : quote:
It notes the average price for cable modem service was $34.95 per month, and $35.38 for DSL.
Unless I'm reading it wrong...it says $39.45/mo is the cable average. Also out of curiousity what cable operators have service for less than $40/mo? All of the majors I can think of which would constitute the vast majority of cable HSI subs are all over $40, typically $43 or $45 so there must be tons offering for less than $40? Who are they? You are right. The study says avg cable price is $39.45, not the $34.95 listed in the BBR news summary(the news summary has now been corrected with the right price).
As for why it is less than $40, that would be because of the intro prices being factored into the equation and the pkg discounts being offered. One example, Comcast has been pushing its $33 for HSI, $33 for VOIP, & $33 for cable pkg aggressively.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA
| reply to Ahrenl
Re: Duh, simple business.
And you can't have a free market for broadband when only a handful of companies control the pipes into all homes.
The ONLY way to have a free market for broadband is to have an entity that owns the pipe into the home but does NOT sell service... instead, any service provider can use the pipe for a fee, letting the consumer decide who he/she wants service from.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | reply to TKJunkMail
Re: $39.45 not $34.95
[...]intro prices being factored into the equation.
Very deceptive. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| reply to TKJunkMail
With the major Telcos offering sub $20 DSL and for longer periods of time (as their promos are often 12 months while cable is 3-6 months) I would think the average DSL price would be far less than $30. That is unless they factor in the POTS costs into the DSL price. |
|
itguy05
join:2005-06-17
Camp Hill, PA
| reply to Mactron
Re: Duh, simple business.
quote:
I had 768/128 for $49.95 a month five years ago. Today I have 3000/768 for $29.95 a month. All with the same ISP.
Funny how competition works.
And which ISP is this? During the 5 years I was with Covad, they "upgraded" the speed a couple times, but I never saw it as I was way on the end of the line from the CO. Then again, I was paying $40/mo for 600/128 DSL.
Now I'm with Comcast, paying $4something for 6000/something. Or I could have went with Verizon for $10 phone line+ $20 for 3/something DSL.
Or get "naked" DSL for $50/mo....
So, yeah they are all about the same price. Some charge less for less speed, some charge more for more speed. So far, I'm very happy with my Comcast cable and Internet - about $5 more than I was paying to DirecTV and Covad and I get cooler features and HD, which would have been a $400 inventment with DTV. |
|
costbenefitanalysis
@verizon.net
| exclude copyright from this argument for a minute.
if you look at the cost/benefit analysis its done PLENTY to bring down the average VALUE of copyrighted materials because of technology and the cost to transmit the data.
What everyone is circling the wagons about is that there are million in profits at stake and companies would like to find the LEAST costly way to make the MOST profit, eh, capitalism, what a country. Putting aside the fact that the world OIL markets are a scam fleecing the world out of trillions of dollars per year, etc.
Alot of what companies do in terms of infrastructure are relatively transparent, or have become so over the past decade. Not that they'll share their HONEST balance sheets with you any time soon (particulary true of telcos war-chest pre 1986). No doubt that loads of this profit got trucked out of the country when major CEO's and high ranking members of the FORMER companies left. That still left hundreds of billions in 1986 dollars left split amongst what what then 7-10 regional rbocs and 3 major telcom carriers(long distance companies as it were).
Technology advancements in telcom have made the internet what it is today. Greed also plays an increasing role. Even though there are diverse players in backbone, infrastructure, and content/service providers, the LAST MILE is still LOCKED down to the number of companies you can count on your fingers.
If you look at price tends for the past 20 years, voice services were coming down, while video was steadily increasing (albeit more channels were added to the 12-30 initial channel line-up that was cable-tv in the early 80s).
Cable companies increasingly looked at constantly giving the consumer more channels, and higher bills all the time. Pay per view revenue models ensued to compete with a thriving video rental business. The internet was still in dialup or ISDN lines worth their weight in gold, platnum and diamonds.
The internet was NOT a thing in most homes even in the early 90's and previously made for computers that people didn't have in their homes. Maybe around 1995 things started to boom come the dawn of cheaper technology. Jarad was still a fatass and didn't even know what a subway sandwich was (but I digress)
There have been quantum leaps in the kinds of technology which makes up the internet of today. There are backbone providers which are similar deployed like cell phone tower links across the country. A MAJORITY of the traffic is still going to the HIGHEST bidders (tier-1 traffic). What you people get even on your residential broadband and fttp backbones is at best tier-2, tier-3, tier-4 multipeered reseller bandwidth or tier-1 surplus bandwidth packets, ie best effort for the residential market. This harkens to the boom days of the airlines (well before 9/11) of Elite class all the way to the sub-economy class, where your luck to even be on the plane. Depending on who your provider is, your a couple of notches off the bottom rung of current infrastructure (or not, hint-hint att,bellsouth,qwest,cable companies who need not be embarassed further).
To conclude, yes things will get better, but loads slower than you might expect. Why? well, allow me to include this footnote on our economy:
Even though you have $3 (going to $4+ I promise you!)/gallon of gas, do you see a floodgate of scurrying to build hydrogen vehicles, e85 fillup stations, etc, etc. Hell no, satus-quo is just too profitable. They've got you by the balls and they KNOW IT! So, until you fire 99% of the people in power (leave 1% just to taunt them about how things WERE) and put people who MANDATE change, NOTHING WILL HAPPEN, it will soon be $5,6,7 a gallon and you'll just have to bend-over-and-take-it with a gleeful grin on your face and say "thank you oil company cartels" and everyone who profits from the blood of dead americans. There is lots of promise of improvement in the economy but whose interest is it to make things less profitable to corporations and more beneficial to the consumer? You need to be asking the people in charge alot of pointed questions about this and wake up. Not much is going to happen fast when an energy crisis looms. (playstations,xbox's, ipods notwithstanding) |
|
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| reply to jslik
Re: Duh, simple business.
said by jslik :said by itguy05 : Just wait till all the IPTV and FiOS customers get their bills in year 2 and realize they are paying almost as much as cable..... Excellent point, which brings up the subject of why does everyone want to rush this regulatory giveaway of the farm to the telcos in the name of 'speeding up' deployment. The decisions we make right now we'll have to live with for decades. Look to the East. Regulation is reasonable in some markets. |
|
